Gary Ezzo v Robin Grille [2004] NSWSC 670

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Gary Ezzo v Robin Grille [2004] NSWSC 670 HEARING DATE(S) : 14/07/2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Nicholas J DECISION : para 19

CATCHWORDS : DEFAMATION - imputations - capacity - form - whether imputations differ in substance LEGISLATION CITED : Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) s 7A(3) Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 31 r 2, Pt 67 r 11(3) Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 CASES CITED : Feros v West Sydney Radio Pty Limited (Unreported, NSWCA, 22 June 1982) Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1977) 2 NSWLR 749 Singleton v Ffrench (1986) 5 NSWLR 425 PARTIES : Gary Ezzo - Plaintiff Robin Grille - Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20137/03 COUNSEL : T K Tobin QC - Plaintiff S Wheelhouse SC - Defendant SOLICITORS : Freehills - Plaintiff Corrs Chambers Westgarth - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST

Nicholas J

29 July 2004

20137/03 Gary Ezzo v Robin Grille

JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: Pursuant to SCR Pt 31 r 2, and by consent, there has been a separate trial of questions concerning some of the imputations pleaded in para 8 of the Second Amended Statement of Claim. 2 The pleading was filed pursuant to leave granted by Levine, J on 18 June 2004. In his judgment of that date His Honour made rulings in respect of the imputations pleaded in para 8 of the Amended Statement of Claim, some of which were struck out with liberty to replead. The imputations subject to argument before me were pleaded with regard to His Honour's reasons and rulings. 3 In the current pleading the Plaintiff contends that the matter complained of, being the article published in the August 2002 edition of the magazine "Sydney's Child" under the heading "Fundamentalism: A War Against Children", in its natural and ordinary meaning conveyed imputations defamatory of him, including the following: "8(1) The plaintiff has caused the deaths of numerous infants in that but for the parenting methods advocated by the plaintiff, which are outdated, hostile toward children and pathologically obsessed with obedience, those infants would not have died. (2) The plaintiff has caused numerous infants to suffer serious injuries in that but for the parenting methods advocated by the plaintiff, which are outdated, hostile toward children and pathologically obsessed with obedience, those infants would not have suffered serious injuries. (3) The plaintiff is morally responsible for the deaths of numerous infants in that but for the parenting methods advocated by the plaintiff, which are outdated, hostile toward children and pathologically obsessed with obedience, those infants would not have died. (4) The plaintiff is morally responsible for the fact that numerous infants have suffered serious injuries in that but for the parenting methods advocated by the plaintiff, which are outdated, hostile toward children and pathologically obsessed with obedience, those infants would not have suffered serious injuries. … (6) The plaintiff was reasonably suspected of having himself engaged in child maltreatment. … (12) The plaintiff causes the creation of abusive family environments in which he publicly advocates fundamentalist religion which engenders abusive family environments; (13) The plaintiff causes the creating of oppressive family environments in that he advocates fundamentalist religion which engenders oppressive family environments;". 4 The Defendant sought orders that imputations 8(1), (2), (3), (4), (12,) and (13) be struck out on grounds that each is incapable of arising and/or was defective in form and/or did not differ in substance from others. Also sought was an order that 8(6) be struck out on the ground that it does not differ in substance from imputation 8(6) pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim which Levine, J struck out as incapable of being conveyed (para 24) without leave to replead. 5 It is convenient to turn first to the question concerning imputation 8(6). The imputation struck out by Levine, J was: "8(6) The plaintiff has so conducted himself as to give rise to the reasonable suspicion on the part of an official body that he has engaged in child maltreatment".